What is fair pay for midlaw entry-level Forum

[BobsYourMan30]

Whatever. You guys are unsupportive.

Is the firm ThompsonCoe

No. That's a dumb sound firm.

[presh]

OP: Is the pay I'm getting fair?

All the people with experience: Yes, that is totally normal.

OP: You didn't tell me what I want to hear so I'm going to pout. I'm entitled to biglaw pay dammit.

[dead head]

OP: Is the pay I'm getting fair?

All the people with experience: Yes, that is totally normal.

OP: You didn't tell me what I want to hear so I'm going to pout. I'm entitled to biglaw pay dammit.

I don't know if anyone is saying it's normal, just that he should accept it.

Billing out all associates at the same rate really doesn't make much sense and, if biglaw clients are any indication, I'm surprised that the firm's clients tolerate it. Why should they be expected to pay the same rates for someone with 8 years of experience as for someone with none? I understand the rate is much lower, but that doesn't explain why the billing model is so different.

This isn't to say that OP has any leverage or that his pay rate is below market, though.

[presh]

OP: Is the pay I'm getting fair?

All the people with experience: Yes, that is totally normal.

OP: You didn't tell me what I want to hear so I'm going to pout. I'm entitled to biglaw pay dammit.

I don't know if anyone is saying it's normal, just that he should accept it.

Billing out all associates at the same rate really doesn't make much sense and, if biglaw clients are any indication, I'm surprised that the firm's clients tolerate it. Why should they be expected to pay the same rates for someone with 8 years of experience as for someone with none? I understand the rate is much lower, but that doesn't explain why the billing model is so different.

This isn't to say that OP has any leverage or that his pay rate is below market, though.

Plenty of people ITT have pointed out that 85k for midlaw in a secondary market is perfectly reasonable. As a working attorney, I can assure you it is.

The billing issue is a little strange, assuming it's true, but that is a separate issue from whether his pay is fair for an entry level position.

[Veyron]

Might just be a case of falling from grace. I went into a T10 expecting big law and making a substantial investment. Oh well.

This thread should be stickied as an example of why K-JDs who have never worked before should not to pay sticker to go to a T14.

Expectations <---------GAP---------> Reality

The gap is large.

Reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks ago, where this girl was explaining that when interviewing new college grads just about every one of them asked if or how fat they could become managers

Nothing wrong with ambition.

[froglee]

What doesn't make sense to me is that all associates bill the exact same rate. Why should an associate with more experience get paid more. At this firm i'm at, an 8th year associate bills the exact same as me but makes 140k. We have the same level of profitability, I dont understand the discrepancy in wage.

Yea, this really sucks. Don't take this job. You are too good for the company. You could have make parter 8th year in big law. Why should you be colleague with some kind of loser earning 140k just because he stayed in this company longer. You should negotiate with the company that you want to partner position guaranteed in 6 years, otherwise you won't accept the offer.

[guano]

Might just be a case of falling from grace. I went into a T10 expecting big law and making a substantial investment. Oh well.

This thread should be stickied as an example of why K-JDs who have never worked before should not to pay sticker to go to a T14.

Expectations <---------GAP---------> Reality

The gap is large.

Reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks ago, where this girl was explaining that when interviewing new college grads just about every one of them asked if or how fat they could become managers

Nothing wrong with ambition.

but you got to have something to back it up.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[IAFG]

While I agree beggars can't be choosers, there are a lot of things I would rather do instead of ID, even if that meant a long stay in the Vale and waiting tables while hustling.

The real question is why OP applied to this job. I hope you're in the process of a well-organized job search now.

[BobsYourMan30]

Can someone explain why there's so much ID bashing? Especially when there's different kinds of ID (legal mal, employment, professional liability, etc.) and not just auto or premises.

[dead head]

While I agree beggars can't be choosers, there are a lot of things I would rather do instead of ID, even if that meant a long stay in the Vale and waiting tables while hustling.

Says the person who can't leave the biglaw job she hates because she has a family to support.

[northwood]

No this is my first real job.

There is no ID bashing going on here. Rather, this thread is bashing the sense of entitlement that permeates from this thread like a steaming pile of manure on a 100 degree summer day with 95% humidity. This sense of entitlement may be the root of your issues. You haven't worked at a "real" job, but yet you think you are equal to someone who has been there since around the time you graduated high school ( assuming you are a K-JD). You aren't.

As a new hire, you have not demonstrated your worth to demand a raise. Even if you came from somewhere else, once you accept the offer, you need to demonstrate that you make the firm more profitable before you should even thin about approaching them for a raise.

Perhaps your initial query about whether your salary is in line for a secondary market, which is a valid question. In a general context it is, but if you do not like that area of work, then that is the real issue, not pay- and you should take time to consider whtehr you want to do this type of work or not. Hopefully you did.

Once you have been with the firm for a few years, then you can consider reevaluating this issue. Or if you really hate this type of work, you can set off on a new job search. But you need to demonstrate you abilities first, and learn the ropes to see if this is for you or not

[Veyron]

While I agree beggars can't be choosers, there are a lot of things I would rather do instead of ID, even if that meant a long stay in the Vale and waiting tables while hustling.

Honestly, if the pay was the same, I'd rather do ID than biglaw. ID attorneys get the most courtroom exposure of all civil attorneys. In a certain sense this actually gives you better "exit options" than biglaw as well because you actually know how to practice law. Met plenty of biglaw 7th years in "litigation" at "trial firms" that have never tried a case.

[guano]

ID ... actually gives you better "exit options" than biglaw

[IAFG]

ID attorneys get the most courtroom exposure of all civil attorneys.

Possibly true, but still wouldn't want to do it for other reasons. If I am going to do shitlaw, it won't be defense side.

[Veyron]

ID attorneys get the most courtroom exposure of all civil attorneys.

Possibly true, but still wouldn't want to do it for other reasons. If I am going to do shitlaw, it won't be defense side.

Fair fair. Although ID is great training for a future strike-suiter. You can learn a ton about internal settlement procedures and how insurers evaluate cases.

[IAFG]

While I agree beggars can't be choosers, there are a lot of things I would rather do instead of ID, even if that meant a long stay in the Vale and waiting tables while hustling.

Says the person who can't leave the biglaw job she hates because she has a family to support.

I don't hate my job and would do it for $60k instead of ID for $85k.

[TTRansfer]

As someone who won't be making 160K, feels that he is lucky to have the job lined up he has, and knows a ton of friends that are jobless, the OP sure comes off as an entitled fucker.

[NotMyRealName09]

OP - ID is not going to lead you into big law. The flat rate you describe is, as I understand it, common with insurance work. They 8th year associate gets paid more because, as said already, less of their time gets written off because they actually know what they are doing. The third year telling you all that stuff sounds disgruntled and you need to consider that when assessing what they say.

You might not yet understand that a lot of ID work is task-based, and therefore it doesn't matter if an attorney takes 1 hour to draft an answer or 4, the insurance company is going to pay X for that answer. You're going to take four hours, therefore you're going to draft less answers per year than the attorney who takes one hour - even though you both may bill the exact same number of hours in a year. See how the more experienced attorney is going to bring in more money? None of you are probably actually being billed out at a set rate anyways, but rather just assigned tasks that bring in set fees.

You don't know shit about the practice of law, they are going to spend years teaching you.

All that said, I have peers who would cry tears of joy at landing a job paying $85k even five years out of law school. Part of me wants to lambast you for sounding like such an entitled asshole. You really do. You need to learn humility and how to be grateful and it seems the world is trying to teach you but you won't listen.

But part of me feels sad for you. You sound sad big law didn't materialize. You sound naive and surprised that your T10 degree didn't anoint you with $160k by default. And while I don't feel sympathy for special snowflake syndrome, I guess I can empathize with your natural feeling of disappointment.

So here is something constructive - count your fucking blessings. You're going to be making more in your first year out of law school than, I don't know, 80% of all law school graduates across America this year, maybe 90%. Some graduates won't find full time employment, some will be grateful for a job paying 45k. Realize things could be worse, and grow up a little bit.

$85k a year is pretty good money for someone who apparently went K-JD, and I think you need to consider that your expectations really do diverge from the reality of the job market (information entirely available, by the way, when you started law school).

[dead head]

While I agree beggars can't be choosers, there are a lot of things I would rather do instead of ID, even if that meant a long stay in the Vale and waiting tables while hustling.

Says the person who can't leave the biglaw job she hates because she has a family to support.

I don't hate my job and would do it for $60k instead of ID for $85k.

Weren't you making fun of people who though they would like to do biglaw for a few years, and saying how awful it really is? And wasn't your reason for why you're still in it because you have to support your family? Can you make $60k waiting tables?

So here is something constructive - count your fucking blessings. You're going to be making more in your first year out of law school than, I don't know, 80% of all law school graduates across America this year, maybe 90%. Some graduates won't find full time employment, some will be grateful for a job paying 45k. Realize things could be worse, and grow up a little bit.

I'm genuinely curious why these sorts of comments don't seem to appear in the threads where people talk about how horrible $160k biglaw jobs are. No talk of entitlement, but lots of commiseration on how bad the hours and people are.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean, you have a point, but the people in the biglaw threads aren't bitching that someone with more experience than they have is making more than they are. No one in the biglaw threads is bitching about their salary. If OP had started at the job and didn't like the people/hours/work he was doing, people would likely respond differently.

[20141023]

.

[BobsYourMan30]

OP - ID is not going to lead you into big law. The flat rate you describe is, as I understand it, common with insurance work. They 8th year associate gets paid more because, as said already, less of their time gets written off because they actually know what they are doing. The third year telling you all that stuff sounds disgruntled and you need to consider that when assessing what they say.

You might not yet understand that a lot of ID work is task-based, and therefore it doesn't matter if an attorney takes 1 hour to draft an answer or 4, the insurance company is going to pay X for that answer. You're going to take four hours, therefore you're going to draft less answers per year than the attorney who takes one hour - even though you both may bill the exact same number of hours in a year. See how the more experienced attorney is going to bring in more money? None of you are probably actually being billed out at a set rate anyways, but rather just assigned tasks that bring in set fees.

You don't know shit about the practice of law, they are going to spend years teaching you.

All that said, I have peers who would cry tears of joy at landing a job paying $85k even five years out of law school. Part of me wants to lambast you for sounding like such an entitled asshole. You really do. You need to learn humility and how to be grateful and it seems the world is trying to teach you but you won't listen.

But part of me feels sad for you. You sound sad big law didn't materialize. You sound naive and surprised that your T10 degree didn't anoint you with $160k by default. And while I don't feel sympathy for special snowflake syndrome, I guess I can empathize with your natural feeling of disappointment.

So here is something constructive - count your fucking blessings. You're going to be making more in your first year out of law school than, I don't know, 80% of all law school graduates across America this year, maybe 90%. Some graduates won't find full time employment, some will be grateful for a job paying 45k. Realize things could be worse, and grow up a little bit.

$85k a year is pretty good money for someone who apparently went K-JD, and I think you need to consider that your expectations really do diverge from the reality of the job market (information entirely available, by the way, when you started law school).

About lateraling, other firms don't know how these guys bill internally. If you looked at their website, you'd have no idea they did ID at all let alone bill the same for all associates. In fact, they do a lot of non-insured work as well and are rated highly in a variety of publications. (national tier US news, etc.) I suppose I have been a bit immature in comparing myself to a senior; after all, seniority is one of those factors. (look at public school teachers).

I apologize if I appear whinny or naive, but I am just concerned about my future. I am okay with making < 100k for a little while but what do I do in 3 years. I need to lateral out. Even though the firm seems reputable and national in scope, I want the $$$$$ in the long run. Advice!?

[dead head]

Yeah, as A. Nony Mouse pointed out, it’s probably because the people who make threads complaining about biglaw hours / conditions have at least worked in biglaw for a few months (usually years) and are basically saying that they would gladly take a job that pays a lot less for a better work environment. There is not much of a sense of entitlement there; those posters admit that they were naive for not believing that biglaw is as bad as everyone says it is, and are now looking for “less desirable” (in terms of pay) options.

You would have a point if those people in biglaw who were complaining were actually looking for something else, and if they would actually take a job paying much less. For the most part, they're not: they're putting in their few years and the looking to move slightly downmarket to in-house or midlaw. They definitely aren't waiting tables, as they've said they would do in this thread.

There is, however, the same sense of entitlement in the sense that they're making twice as much as this guy—which is to say much more than an even smaller percentage of people ever will—and complaining heavily about working conditions that are no worse than a lot of other jobs that pay a lot less. If that's not being entitled, I don't think OP is.

However, in this thread, you have someone who was no-offered and is therefore lucky to have a job at all, yet is complaining about the fact that he has a job which “only” pays $85,000 a year. He has also stated that he (a new hire) should be treated the same way as someone who has been with the company for 8 years in terms of compensation.

Although both may be “whiners,” the level of entitlement is completely different.

Lots of people in biglaw are lucky, to a certain extent, that they didn't get no-offered. Lots of people in biglaw are lucky to have a job at all. It's really weird to think that if he didn't get no-offered, and had started at biglaw, then his complaints about a job that pays even more would be totally acceptable here.

I also didn't get the sense that he was saying he should be paid the same as the 8th year, just that the model didn't make sense.

[BobsYourMan30]

And just to be clear, I got no-offered because I was sexually harassed and refused to go along with it. Let's just say I am probably the only SA to ever get severance pay.